Large acreage question

[woodchuckie]

Must not have as many hungry lawyers in your area. If you don't stay after them around here they'll get hurt doing something stupid while trespassing and will soon own your property because you were negligent in keeping them out or warning them about every possible way they can get hurt on your property.

Information I have garnered from Alabama's Treasured Forest magazine.

On the liability issue:
Someone you give permission to be on your property to hunt must be informed of all hazards you know about.
Someone who pays you for the right to hunt on your land: You must inspect for hazards and inform them and probably take steps to prevent injury.(fill and old well) etc.

With respect to the duties owed to trespassers, there are two types of trespassers to consider. First, there is the undiscovered trespasser, to whom the property owner owes no duty whatsoever. Second, there is the anticipated or discovered trespasser. To those parties, the landowner owes a duty of common humanity (See British Railways Board v. Herrington)é* duty to warn them of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to them, but of which the property owner is aware. A warning sign at the entrance to the land will suffice for this purpose. However, a property owner is under no duty to ascertain hazards on his property, and cannot be held liable for failing to discover a deadly hazard which injures a trespasser.
Furthermore, an adult trespasser who is injured while on a defendant's property cannot sue under a theory of strict liability, even if the landowner was engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as the keeping of wild animals, or the use of explosives. Instead, the trespasser must prove that the property owner intentionally or wantoning injured the plaintiff to recover. The exception is a child who is trespassing to play on ultra-hazardous items on the land. Since these trespassers are considered "anticipated" they are excepted under the doctrine of attractive nuisance.

 

[Dargo]

Thanks woodchuckie. I don't know how much Indiana varies from any other state. It seems that in our state any trespasser who manages to almost qualify for a Darwin Award by nearly removing themselves from the gene pool by hurting themselves while trespassing has hordes of attorneys chasing them trying to convince them that they should sue. This seems to be based more on the presumption that the landowner will have money that the attorney and trespasser may extort.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

IMO, if you can afford the property you ought to be able to help keep up the fences. That is a part of rural living and being a good neighbor.

I will disagree also. I have no problems helping with labor, tools or equipment if needed but no one around me has cattle or even horses so no one needs a fence. We put up fences for our deer and would never expect anyone to help pay for these fences as they have no use of such a fence. If both sides had cattle and it was a joint fence then that is what the law was intended for, to get rid of the hassles over whos turn it is to pay to fix the fence. But if only one side has anything to gain by the fence it is wrong to force the neighbor to pay for his business upkeep.

The closest thing we have here is a few grape farmers have rows on the boundry. Their way of dealing with this is they alternate every year who maintains and harvests the row. The downside is one takes better care of the row then the other so it costs him more to work that row and the other farmer makes more off the row as a result. But since it is only one row they just accept it and make due with no problems.

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

This is just a curiosity question. I read at times people here that have hundreds of acres of land, and I知 wondering do you all manage tall that land or just a few home acres and leave the rest just sit?

Do you fence that much land?

I have been looking at some auction with hundreds of acres but that amount of land seems overwhelming to me.

One of my other thoughts how do you keep people off that much land?

Anyway just thought I'd post and see if I can get a better understanding.

Having recently visited with someone who farms several thousand acres in wheat / canola and cattle, it seems to me the secret is having hundreds of thousands in modern equipment and technology so that one can work smarter rather than harder.

For example the large JD Quads and Combines are GPS equipped. The GPS steers in a perfectly straight line when required, saving fuel. The technology can turn on / off portions of the sprayers saving overlap of fertilizer = money. They can download field maps to pinpoint alkaline soil and the GPS turns off the sprayers at the appropriate time. They can even flag a rock and go back later with another machine to pick it up.

The big combines are capable of processing as much as 20 acres per hour. During harvest time they may run the combines 16 hours non stop.

Even the grain storage bins have electronic temp monitoring system.

Bigger, bigger, bigger seems to be the irreversible trend for farming.

The grain farming almost sounds like the easy part. The cattle seem to require constant attention - apparently they take great delight in calfing in the middle of the night. I'm told the buyers find any excuse to knock down the price they will pay, for example frozen ears, crooked tails = $0.20 per pound reduction.

Sounds like unless one inherits the family farm that several million would be required as an entrance fee and severl hundred thousand for working capital until one sees any return on investment or work.

 

[rgood]

The farmer I worked for worked from 5 am to 9 pm.

 

[Dargo]

Sounds like unless one inherits the family farm that several million would be required as an entrance fee and severl hundred thousand for working capital until one sees any return on investment or work.

I'd have to agree with your quote. A girl I dated back in college lived on her father's farm that he inherited from his father. Her great-grandfather bought 10 sections of land from the U.S. government. That is the amount they were still farming back when I was in college. And, yes, they did have motorized tractors back then!

I forgot the exact amount (age and senility I'm sure), but it seems like her father told me that it cost him nearly 400k to get all of his crops out by the time it was all said and done. I do believe that amount, if it's correct, did include the cost of crop insurance which he considered mandatory at his operation. I then realized how a farmer could be "poor" yet still be able to write a check for a hundred and fifty grand for a new piece of equipment. My little mind just can't comprehend the expenses of farming on that scale.

 

[MossRoad]

It only takes 4 miles of fence to fence in 640 acres, so not really that big of deal.

That depends on how it is shaped. We looked at a 40 acre parcel that required 1.5 miles of fence. And we looked at 120 acres that required over 2 miles of fence. Heck, our 20 acres has three fourths of a mile perimeter.

 

[MossRoad]

Farmers pay the bulk of property taxes while the CEO in town pays very little.

Our 20 acre tree farm is less than $8.00 per acre annually for property taxes.

 

[Duffster]

That depends on how it is shaped. We looked at a 40 acre parcel that required 1.5 miles of fence. And we looked at 120 acres that required over 2 miles of fence. Heck, our 20 acres has three fourths of a mile perimeter.

That is if it is a square/full section.

 

[MossRoad]

That is if it is a square/full section.

I understand. In our county here in northern Indiana there are very few parcels over 80 acres in size.